About your Search

20130301
20130331
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
guns. in the nine years i was mayor of san francisco, we started out with police issue being a .38 caliber revolver. we have seen it escalate, we have seen shotguns being removed from squad cars and being replaced with assault weapons. why? because of an increasingly armed criminal element that police often have to go up against. i watched as the los angeles police department had to break into a gun store to take weapons to be able to counter what was going up against them following a robbery in los angeles. i don't know why anyone would object to drying up the supply of these weapons over time. they are not good hunting weapons. many states have limits on the number of bullets but can be on a clip. -- that can be on a clip. who is going to respect a hunter with a 30 round clip and assault weapon going after a direceer? i would not. the intention of this is to dry up the supply over time. while homicides in general are down in this country, mass killings are not. the fact is that these assault weapons have a great attraction for grievance killers, the people that go into law office
cannot tonight to lesbians and gays. they will in a court in san francisco, the ninth circuit, and now the defenders of proposition 8 have appealed to the supreme court. that is a case they are going to hear today. host: the ninth circuit court case, we covered it on c-span. viewers can go to our web site to hear the foundation for that. who is arguing aside -- besides ted olson? who is also behind, against proposition 8? guest: there'll be three attorneys today. two reagan attorneys on opposite sides. chuck cooper came to the reagan administration in the 1980's. a conservative guy, he is representing the sponsors of proposition 8. he's got 30 minutes to argue that this is a matter of great national debate and it should be decided by the voters in every state. he is basically going to tell the supreme court, you should stand back and not decide this as a constitutional issue agreed it is being decided state.by- then ted olson is up for 20 minutes to argue that it is a matter of equal rights and you, the supreme court, should not only decided in a narrow way, you should rule it as a rig
that everyone thought had a brilliant future in the san francisco police department walking down third street when a gang member walked the other way with an ak-47, opened his coat and shot him dead. how many times does this have to happen? and it happens all over. that's why the police are for this. you know, you can exempt retired police. they have been trained. they know how to use these. very different from a grievance killer. very different from jonesboro or columbine or virginia tech. very different. and the clips, the size of the clips, who needs it? i mean, would anyone respect someone with a 30-round clip going out shooting deer? i don't think so. so the problem is, you know, i understand the right of people to want to collect these and nothing takes any weapon away from anybody. and to prove it we exempt so many weapons. so i have a hard time understanding why our country isn't better off. with respect to case -- i know others will argue this -- but no assault weapons legislation has been struck down. my last bill went through the fourth, the sixth, the ninth and the d.c. circuit. t
in san francisco, california. many times in the history of our country, the question of my new rights.s -- as a woman, african american, and a same-gender loving woman. i have been in a loving relationship with my partner shirley for 29 years. we were legally married during the window of opportunity in california i stand on behalf of all couples, our families, friends, and religious communities to thank our supporters for the overwhelming support for our right to marry. to encourage the court to follow the art of justice. as you have in the past. and we can put this issue to rest. can we say, put this issue to rest? put this issue to rest. already wonder why this is still an issue. outcome, we will not surrender our right to marry. we will come back again and again and again. until we prevail. providence has determined that the time has come for all couples and families to enjoy the same rights and privileges in this country. remember our faces. this is surely. -- shirley. i'm yvette. we are women. we are black. we are mothers. we are grandmothers. we are faced leaders. we are just as
" that encourages innovation. so, third, i want to hold hackathons in tech-savvy cities like san francisco, austin, denver, and new yorkto forge relationships with developers and stay on the cutting edge. fourth, once our new operation is up and running, we will embark on a data and digital road show to demonstrate what campaigns and state parties can do to enhance their own operations. the report recommended getting early buy-in from all partners. fifth, we will upgrade gop. com as a platform, redesigning it to better utilize social media and serve an increasingly mobile audience. sixth, we're setting up an rnc field office in the san francisco area. as we learned with visits to silicon valley and conversations with top tech firms, many of the best minds are on the other side of the country. having an office there will make it easier for technologists to join our efforts, and it can serve as a hub for our data and digital political training. by doing all this, we will enter 2014 and 2016 with a completely revitalized approach mechanics and technology. so finally, let's discuss what we'll do to im
tickets in no or the l in chicago or the cable cars in san francisco, subsidized by people buying gas. add that all up and you're going to find, if you're good at math and paying attention, mr. speaker, that number comes to about 67 or 68 cents out of the dollar that goes for something else other than roads and bridges. now, how can we justify raising a user fee on the gas tax, as we call it, rather than reprioritizing that gas fax dollar pie where you get a third of the -- tax dollar pie where you get a third of the money going to roads and brings and 2/3 going to something else. i appreciate the gentleman who spoke earlier if he'd take a stand on that perhaps we could find a bipartisan solution. another is child labor. he made the argument that it was the unions that drive the child labor issue and now kids don't have to worry when they go to work. that's correct. hardly anywhere can young people go to work. i ask you to think about some years ago there was a time you could pull into any gas station and some young lad would come running out there with a rag in his back pogget and he woul
income neighborhoods in san francisco, new york and washington state and she witnessed the troubles of women and single mothers living in these communities. ji net became a strong -- janette became a strong national advocate for giving women a voice through the right to vote. she was elected to congress when women still did not have the right to vote. the 19th amendment only passed three months after she left congress. as she put it, we're half the people, we should be half the congress. and so today as we continue to honor her work and legacy, and with this ongoing budget crisis in mind, it's imperative that we redouble our efforts as she would have to come to a solution and to take the lesson of janette rankins, to fight for women and the poor who are disproportionately affected by sequestration and to fight for them as janette rankins fought for them so hard. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, climb's cha
for a hustle, looking for something to make money off of. witnesses told us yesterday, the head of the san francisco police said it is easier to deal in guns and more lucrative than to deal in drugs. a lot of folks who would normally would be dealing in drugs are now dealing in guns, because there is no dedicated trafficking law and this is what our bill would do and increase those penalties for straw purchases. i thank you for doing your hard work and bringing members of the house to forge ahead with regard to legislation to address these issues and i want to thank you and i yield back. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman and i appreciate the fact that you provide clarity on the one issue, and that is that the critics of anything they try and do to prevent gun violence repeatedly state, just enforce the laws that are on the books. and here this gun trafficking proposal that you and mrs. maloney have introduced is, i think talking about the fact that sometimes you need other laws, because there are no laws on the books to prevent against something that leads to the tragedies that we heard
of francis after st. francis of assisi, the patenron saint of my city of san francisco. that is exactly what we sell as his holiness, at his installation. -- tertullian's oliver, a beverly special fees, so we were observing st. patrick's day as well as the feast of st. joseph's this week, and what better way than to have a new pope with new inspiration and new hope. it was pretty exciting. it was more exciting to be there with the vice-president, and vice president biden was so beautiful received by so many other heads of delegations as we awaited the historic mass. he also the night before hosted a reception with a number of the american cardinals who were all in a room, but a number of them came to the reception, so it was a beautiful occasion. what is exciting for me is to come home and hear the interest of my colleagues have in how it was and how was it to be there. it was quite wonderful, a thrill of a lifetime. observe this anniversary of the passage of the four will care act, which was about affordability, access, accountability. what i love about it and most people do not realize, it
think that the other side, and i know the city of san francisco particularly did, say it's different when you're taking it away than when you're not giving. >> well, and, your honor, i am not, i don't deny that there is some force to that proposition, but i do commend to you the crawford case which we think does support the proposition that the people, they act -- if the california court of appeals had invalidated traditional marriage and the california supreme court had reversed that and said "no, our constitution doesn't do that," no one would say that during the interim that that right had existed and the california supreme court had stripped the people of california of it. you,we are submitting to and we believe the crawford case supports is that the people themselves are a tribunal over their constitution standing in those types of shoes. >> could the people of california -- suppose proposition 8, in addition to addressing the subject of marriage, had done what in part the proposition in romer did, which was to disallow civil unions, would you have the same response? would you h
. that americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at their home in bowling green, kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. i don't rise to oppose john brennan's nomination simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that as americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. this is a precious american >> senator rand paul of kentucky, still on the senate floor, going on six hours. earlier on the house floor they passed the continuing resolution, funding the federal government through the end of fiscal year 2013. the vote was 267-151. we talked to a capitol hill reporter for some background and a look at what's ahead with the bill. >> the house has passed a bill to keep the government operating past march 27. what are the
in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at their home in bowling green, kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. i don't rise to oppose john brennan's nomination simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that as americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to give up on the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offense without being indicted. this is a precious american our judges were impressed. you had many interviews. you also interviewed an unemployed man who really could illustrate the point of the effect that issue has on people in this country. can you share something you learned about unemployment about the entire process? >> i think i learned that is more than about earning money and everything that correlated with it. >> what is your favorite part of creating the documentary overall? >> i think the whole p
be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston or at their home in bowling green, kentucky, is an abomination. it is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country. i don't rise to oppose john brennan's nomination simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that as americans we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights, to ge up on the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held for a capital offse without being indicted. this is a precious american >> senator rand paul from yesterday, part of his filibuster over the nomination of john brennan to be cia director. harry reid earlier today said he would like to see -- he is working toward a vote on the senate floor today. no word on whether that will happen. in response to rand paul, the attorney general or the letter that said, dear senator paul, it has come to my attention that you have asked an additional question, does the president have
,000 claims, so we are well on the way. as part of a team at the university of california san francisco medical school, where we analyze the medical, social, and economic costs of each claim. the tricare costa allied this part of the new and updated analysis. we came up with the number is $3 trillion because no matter which way you counted, the minimum you could get was $3 trillion. we did not include financial interest cost in that. if we had included economic costs in that amount, we could have called it four or $5 trillion. the minimum that could cause is $4 trillion. some of the tricare costs have raul lot faster than we predicted. the brown cost of more study is putting it at $6 trillion. at a minimum it is at least a trillion higher. in terms of what to do about it, i have a number of proposals. on the veterans issue, which is where i have spent a lot of my time, the first major recommendation is that we should be appropriating money into a veterans' trust fund at the time we go to war. right now we under price war. the same as if we sit here is a car for $20,000, but there is a h
, for a long time, it was something that we knew was inevitable. from our beautiful place in san francisco, the city of st. francis, we knew it was inevitable that all of this would happen. it was inconceivable to others that it would. and it was our job to use whatever influence we could have to shorten the distance between the inevitable and inconceivable. and i think that is what is happening at the court because of many people's courage, especially those directly and personally affected. yesterday, i had gavin newsom as one of our attendees, people who have been working on this. jim parnell, the first openly gay ambassador, all of the san franciscans who have been in public service who have fought the fight. so it's pretty exciting. i feel pretty good. what i told you about but we won.3, >> you got it right. >> i got it right. [laughter] next friday,day we can start all over again on that one. >> leadership has been so quiet on doma. >> you could say this about that question. --n you get the soundtrack is that what we are calling it? the audio -- [laughter] the soundtrack of the suprem
's council for economic advisers. and then president of the san francisco fed and finally vice- chairman at the federal reserve. the doctor possibly miss to research and discuss some of the thornier issues of economics assures that she is consider one of the most important monetary policymakers of our time. as a business economist, i particularly value the doctor's high interest in reaching out to people in this room to understand how monetary policy is impacting the real world. the doctor is no stranger, having received the award from our organization in 2010 and supporting us several times over the past several years. the adam smith award is well earned as one of my colleagues said last week, the pattern is that she always states out ground where she thought she was right at the risk of being unpopular. whether you agree with her ideas or policies or not, it is difficult to deny that it is a courageous and authentic life. during these times of extraordinary monetary policy, from not only the federal reserve but from the ecb and doj, i look forward to hearing her thoughts on the challen
. there is an economic connection between metro l.a. and metric -- metro san francisco. you will see a lot of success once that is built. host: dr. mckenzie, telik the little bit about how you conducted the study. i noticed flight is not included in there. is that something that you might be including in the future along with high-speed rail and some other transportation ways to get to work? guest: the american commuter survey does ask about various forms of rail. in terms of airline travel, that is typically included in the other category. we do have a catchall category. it is not distinct among the transportation choices that responders can select, but it is included in the other category. we do not disentangle that mode of travel with others, so we do not have good information on how many people consider their commute to work to be taken by airplane. host: i want to hear about your stories about commuting to work. give us a call. the numbers are on the screen there. a caller from maryland is up next. he works at home. caller: good morning. i was just wondering will this problem be solved if busine
being found to be guilty by a court. americans could be killed in a cafe in san francisco or in a restaurant in houston are at their home in kentucky is an abomination. it is something that should not think cannot be tolerated in our country. i do not want to oppose it simply for the person. i rise today for the principle. the principle is one that we have fought long and hard for and to give up on that principle, to give up on the bill of rights and the fifth amendment protection that says that no person shall be held without due process, that no person shall be held with that capital offense without being guided, and this is an american dream. >> during the 13 hour filibuster that lasted into thursday morning, met he had to stay standing on the floor of the senate. he was joined by other senators that as questions they're up the day and night including ted kreuz, marco rubio, back to me -- , umpat toomey, ron johnson and minority leader mitch mcconnell. dick durbin ask questions but did not officially speak as part of the filibuster. here is a look at senator paul's clos
of what went on inside the courtroom here in san francisco at the distich trial. we put that on because we wanted to show people what went on inside the courtroom and normalize it. we find as we move along the wind is at our back and like we're hitting critical mass. you see more and more states adopting it. now great britain seeing more countries. it will happen. it is supposed to happen. said this many times, that we cannot imagine that there was a time women could not vote. we cannot imagine a time when black people could not vote. we could not imagine a time when black people could not marry white people. there will be a time years from now when we say gay marriage, what was that all about? it will take time, and we're moving in the right direction, but it is about a fundamental right. we cannot look at our fellow are lessand say you certainly, you deserve less. you are a second-class listened. you cannot do that. you cannot feel comfortable about yourself knowing there are millions of people in this country that are not considered equal under the law. >> are you optimistic about what
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)